Posted on 12/10/2004 3:38:41 PM PST by Ed Current
Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular state or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore, this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. Government and religion should be kept as far apart as possible. There are several historical "facts" secularists use to support their views. Apparently, one of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word "God" in the U.S. Constitution. To secularists, the absence of the word "God" is extremely significant. Indeed, it has a deep, almost mystical significance to them. It suggests that the framers of the Constitution had little or no interest in religion. Secularists are convinced that the absence of the word "God" proves that there should be a strict separation of church and state in the United States.
The purpose of this article is to argue that the conclusions reached by the secularists goes far beyond what the historical evidence will allow and to offer some reasons for why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.
The U.S. Constitution Before and After Charles Darwin
Most people would not consider Charles Darwin to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people would consider the writings of men like John Locke, Blackstone and James Madison as important in order to understand the Constitution. Obviously, these men had a great influence on the Constitution. But there is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them. Charles Darwin, the author of The Origin of Species (1859) had a profound impact on the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple. Charles Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The U.S. Constitution is seen today as a "secular" document. This is what Charles Darwin gave us. Charles Darwin gave us secularism. Secularism as a philosophy is based on the principle that there is an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. However, secularists believe that in terms of the government, it does not matter whether God exists or not. The impact of secularism on the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: ". . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone." Note 1.
The Constitution Before Darwin
To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationist. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes desirable. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ." Note 2. The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
The Constitution After Darwin
The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word "God" in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word "God" took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word "God" was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add "Almighty God" and "Jesus Christ" to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that "In the Name of God" should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word "God" should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationist verses another. Almost no believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word "God" was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationist and evolutionist. Secularists insist that the absence of the word "God" means that the Constitution created a godless government in America.
Where is "God" in the Preamble to the Constitution?
Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People.Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Where is "God" in the First Amendment?
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . . " The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God" "natural right" "worship" or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.
Where is "God" in the Constitution?
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers." Note 3.
Special Note: Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong. Interestingly, in 1915 there was one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ! Note 4.
For a more in-depth discussion of how monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced the U.S. Constitution read new my booklet: "The Ten Commandments For Beginners." Visit: www.mytencommandments.us for ordering information.
Notes.
1. Clinton Rossiter, 1787, The Grand Convention, pg. 126 (1966).
2. Vol 1. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p. 64 (1896).
3. State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950).
4. Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).
Wow, excellent! Thanks.
Be careful what you ask for. :)
It's impossible to understand what role God plays in government without understanding a simple precept. There is MORE than one meaning to the word *law*.
The Founders, wise men that they were, realized that our world is composed of 2 types of ‘worlds’
The natural world... The physical world that consists of people, plants, the earth, etc., and the Positive world...the artificial world we create for ourselves, consisting of society, government, etc.
EACH ONE OF THESE WORLDS HAS IT’S OWN KIND OF *LAW*, AS WELL AS IT'S OWN CORRESPONDING TYPE OF *PERSON*:
Black's Law Dictionary ;
"natural person" : A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.
"artificial person" : An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
The Ten Commandments are two sets of laws. Enforcement of the first 5 remains only in God's purview. The LAST 5 Commandments were laws between men AND punishable BY man. Breaking one of these 5 Commandment is what defines *crime*
This is what is known as Natural Law, or the law of Nature and nature's God of the Declaration of Independence.
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind.
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
Natural law STILL exists, and these TWO separate sets of laws is what MAKES us a "Republic"
natural law:
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical Ten Commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
The Constitution doesn’t mention God because it is a POSITIVE LAW CONTRACT between the artificial creations known as “States” and the centralized United States. The ONLY role the people play in the Constitution is to ORDAIN and ESTABLISH it.
It has nothing else to do with the people except to enumerate a few POSITIVE LAW rights in the Bill of Rights. Take the 2nd Amendment, for example. It not only acknowledges the peoples natural law right to self defense, it ALSO gives us a positive law right to a SPECIFIC means to do so...*arms*. (Now you know why the BOR was separated from the Constitution.)
The Constitution gives only CERTAIN powers to the Federal government. EVERYTHING else was left to the states:
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.
Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
The Constitution defines and restricts federal jurisdiction...what the Founders referred to as 'authority'.
The states, on the other hand are a CIVIL authority. They were free to do what the Federal government could not. The Texas law against sodomy is a perfect example of codified natural law. Aside from the Biblical prohibition, the fact the lifestyle is not conducive to the perpetuation of the human species as well as being rampant with disease is a matter of common sense.
The bogus separation of church and state was invented by the 'legal system' (i.e. government) so that GOVERNMENT was no longer restricted by Natural law:
The Supreme Court of Mississippi, (1988) citing the Decalogue, reproached a prosecutor for introducing accusations during cross-examination of a defendant for which the prosecutor had no evidence:
When the State or any party states or suggests the existence of certain damaging facts and offers no proof whatever to substantiate the allegations, a golden opportunity is afforded the opposing counsel in closing argument to appeal to the Ninth Commandment. “Thou shalt not bear false witness . . . ” Exodus 20:16.
Government has purposely tried to blend natural law and positive law into one generic form of 'law' so that government can become the ultimate, unquestionable leagal and moral 'authority' in America.
Good point, and very true. The original concept was stated in the letter.
Perhaps I should have said separation of church and state was 'discovered' in the Constitution by the government, via the legal system.
There are actually a frightening amount of articles posted where some Americans actually believe the Constitution says 'freedom FROM religion', not 'freedom OF religion.
:)
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
___________________________________________________
Man owes obedience to his Creator, not his creation
____________________________________________________________
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
__________________________________________________________
Natural law is superior to Positive law
____________________________________________________________
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
___________________________________________________
There can never be a Church of the United States
___________________________________
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
______________________________
Doesn't say religion can't interfere with government except for the above limitation
___________________________________________
thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
People bent on creating a godless America have used this 'wall' to push the Founders original meaning completely out of the publics view.
There was a recent article about a school district that found teaching the Declaration of Independence 'questionable' because of it's repeated references to God.
Nature abhors a vacuum. The morality gap in our country has been filled with governmental regulations, any many Americans have no concept of the true meaning of Freedom.
Ping to a interesting discussion :)
Thanks!
You just *had* to bring me into this while I am studying for my Vietnamese exam. :-)
Having read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I find it laughable that people declare it a a secular document. G-d is either referenced directly or by allusion many, many times. Also, the personal writings of the Founding Fathers do not portray them as Diests.
Perhaps, but she didn't really have a choice. Since she was lobbing for a Home-Schooling group, it was fight the authorities or see other families get destroyed, possibly her own one day.
These negative experiences with you mom could have made you resentful and discouraged about sharing God with legislators.
I don't hate legislators... not as individuals anyway. On the other hand I detest the whole philosophy democracy is based on as mindless herdism. Thus I have little to no respect for the office of legislator. However I have voted in every election since I reached voting age, but only to support moral issues, so you'll be happy to know I do vote republican.
Again, no matter how evil you may see our government today, that should be even more reason for you to take them up on their invitation...
"All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them."
Should read "All power residing originally in Our Lord Christ, and being derived from same..."
Even were I to succeed in subjecting government (state or other) to my will, I would insist on government subjecting itself to God, and from Him receiving all authority (not from the people). But I can't do both since legally I would have to invoke my will in this effort not God's. Thus one act disqualifies the other. I could use democracy against itself (and indeed democracy is, politically, it's own worst enemy), but how would I justify my own authority to do it? You see I view the system as probably evil, certainly dangerous, precisely because it justifies itself on the mob.
Don't worry about the outcome if it has to do with a majority or not.
So in other words, don't trust democracy. I'm glad you see my point now ; ). Technically thats not what you said, I know, but the implication is still the same.
As a side note, I want to tell you about when I finally lost faith in our system (or at least acknowledged that I had). I was arguing with a liberal political science major in a retail store in my downtown area (a rather liberal area I might add), over the electoral college. He was trying to convince me that it was outdated (this was during the last presidential election). He wanted a system that was more directly democratic. The man was a bit of an idiot, but a passionate one. His reasoning was that a simple majority would give his liberal agenda more power, though why as a social conservative I was supposed to accept this he did not explain. I pointed out to him that the electoral college protects, in the long run at least, the political power of minorities (philosophical, political, religious, etc...). I argued that if he lived in a country overwhelmingly far-right Christian would he still support a simple democracy. Of course he would not. But as I was preparing to lecture him as to why our governmental system of checks and balances have their counter part in our electoral system it occurred to me that I was about to explain that it was an elaborate construction designed to legitimize itself on the will of the people, and at the same time blunt the effective power of that same authority by dividing it. And that this was because democracy was rightly viewed by the founding father as potentially perilous.
The whole system became philosophically untenable. The trouble at the heart of the problem was that it was still justified democratically. This because of the assumption that the effective power of the masses translates to legitimate authority. In other words we are legally right because we a effectively more powerful. Democracy is not idealistic, it's animalistic and it is potentially the greatest tyranny mankind has every lived under. There is no legal appeal from the will of a majority, because right law is justified on the common good as dictated by a majority. It's whole justification is backwards; the crew should captain the ship because they outnumbered the officers? Their authority resting on their collective will? The founding fathers were proceeding from a perspective that had no permanent solution. Once you accept that legitimate authority proceeds from effective power, you are stuck with one form of absolutism or another. The only thing you can do is try to limit the tyrannical dangers of this idea.
Up to that time in the argument I hadn't revealed my political loyalty, and I was suddenly asked right out what it was... So, instead of republican, I answered feudalistic-monarchist, right there in front of God and every buddy.
Suffice it to say, the argument was pretty much over then. The one thing all you democrats and republicans share is a progressive attitude towards politics. Mankind can and does better itself through the aegis of democratic rule.
Evolution makes no claim about the origin of the Universe. It's purely about change within populatons of living things, and can therefore have no application to times and places where no living things existed.
It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation.
This is simply untrue. Many early scientists & philosophers had a notion of a static universe with no beginning at all. And as far as evolution goes, scientists long before Darwin (like Lamarck and Buffon) expressed similar, if less well-developed, ideas about biological change.
There were atheists in 1787 to be sure but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
Atheists still lack any coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
For who grants those rights is the issue.. and the issue IS that there is an authority above that of any government.. People that reject God are relegated to government or anarchy.. or some mix of it like democracy..
People that accept God simply have more options.. Argument between the two groups are doomed to failure because its comparaing apples and oranges.. i.e. the political divide and polariztion in America today..
The so-called liberal and conservatives riff is just a working out of this, I think.. Two different paradigms argueing with each other.. with two monolgues.. because there is no middle ground.. A mix between them cannot work because the God side will not be honored.. even though the God side will try to honor the other side.. with the No God side its their way or the highway.. because to them the government is all there is.. including God is uncivilized.. and unintellectual..
If the God people don't adopt the attitude of my or the highway (that the other side respects) they WILL lose in the long run, in the end.. You cannot appease and win.. Appeasement loses ground with no gain.. You cannot win or even remain stable and stagnant that way.. That is WHY the American Constitution is being frittered away.. and it surely is..
Attack God in the American Constitution and you attack DIRECTLY all the rights given by their guarantor.. With the end result of demoteing them and morphing them into priviledges.. And end up with governments like Canada, England, France, Germany who have ZERO rights at all..
Merely PRIVLEDGES...
Thanks for the ping.
It looks like a great thread, but I'll have to get to it later.
So it is only logical that they would try to fabricate a polity founded on something other than religion, thereby escaping the consequent obligations. What better way to negate the influence of religion in our nation's creed than by denying that God has ever played a role in its formation, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary? If they thought it would clear the way for a few more Mazola parties, they'd deny that the Founders spoke English.
True.. but I responded to you specifically on the "rights" as opposed to "privileges" which I posted about many times.. and feel that that is germ of where America seems to be ignorant.. and is the/a source of the polarization in this country..
Wanted your thoughts on that.. really I wanted your thoughts on whether it lies at the base of our problems, in your view.. or is ancillary.. I see it as the source of Americas obvious confusion on what freedom "IS"...
If I've got that correct, then I would agree that attributing our liberties to the less-than-divine authorship of men subjects them to revocation by the same whim. Whereas an innate set of rights inherent in our spiritual legacy means that only a Divine Creator can alter our freedoms.
In other words, if our rights come from God, we don't have to ask the State for permission to exercise them. If not, then the State IS God.
I know which world I want to live in ...
Thats what I mean, also, by rights vs. privledges..
I think thats why the founders used the word rights instead of the word privledges expicitly for that purpose.. The two words mean such different things.. Amazing that lawyers who make their living parseing words would miss this.. And the difference in the meaning of these two words exactly displays the difference in the American political system and ALL other political systems.. to this day..
Maybe the American system is indeed a Theocracy..
For if, our rights don't come from God, then who.?.
Of Course they do come from God.. its just matter of which God.. Keeping in mind that the "State itself " can be deemed a God.. or the Enviorment(Gaia), or Humanity itself, or so many other pseudo-Gods.. or Demi-Gods.. There are proponets for all those and more.. Maybe the founders were not wise to not specify WHICH God.. Unless they felt that if we got confused on who God was, as a people, it was already too late.. In my way of thinking they would be correct and barring some heroic re-arraignment(revolution) we're "Plucked" like a turkey for thanksgiving..
No. A theocracy is a system of government ruled by the church. Ours is a system of government founded on biblical principles, but ruled by the people themselves. Thus, we have no one to blame but ourselves when it goes terribly, horribly wrong.
Quack... heal thyself.
Moron. Silence thyself.
Quack... heal thyself.
Moron. Silence thyself.
Do forgive me please... I see now that the good doctor was making a prognosis. So then, if we ourselves are the cause of the problem... whats the remedy doc?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.